I'd like to talk about my impression for the Division evaluation contests, which I took part in as a contestant.
First of all, I was really surprised by the high level performance of contestants.
The contestants and test speaker used various techniques for speech in our communication manual.
The test speaker in Division D used vocal variety technique in her speech.
For example, she made a speech about a poety contest, spoke some poetry loudly.
On the other hand, she acted as if she were a contestant of the poetry contestant.
And, all contestants made full use of body language.
All contestants moved from one side of podium to another side, speaking loudly.
Someone suddenly squated down in his evaluation speech.
They must be using these dynamic body languages in their regular meeting.
However, the winner in the Division contest didn't use the most various vocal and didn't use the most dynamic body movement.
I believe that it was the analytic ability that the winner was superior to the other contestants in.
Of course, his vocal variety and body speaking were excellent.
Additionally, He evaluated the test speech in various and unique terms.
For example, he pointed out that speaker should have had some INTERVAL in her speech.
I agree his idea that the interval could have added a great impact on her speech.
Yes, loud and various sounds and dynamic body languages are not important!
They enhance impacts on audience.
However, the important point for test speaker must be specific improvement for herself.
Evaluation should be for speaker, not for audience.
I have never taken a role as IE.
I would be a evaluator who MUST be a great helpful for speakers.